When Words Become Violence

Words when written down enact a state of consciousness on its observer , the information imparted either causes them to think or act both of which
are the result of quantum interaction, therefore information in the form of words has a quantum affect on matter

OP's point is that the words, without the interaction with thought are incapable of producing action. He's right.

The difference in opinions stems from the fact that everyday situations don't happen within that vacuum. The argument doesn't usually apply in real
life.

So lets say a group gets together to tear down a statue. OP's argument fails him. Anyone who "loves" the statue isn't going to be hurt by others
blowing it up. People who feel it is wrong to destroy history are going to feel no pain from a pile of burning books.

Are those things wrong? There is no physical suffering so, by the OP's logic, they can't be yet he used the Buddhas of Bamiyan as an example even
though that actually contradicts his point.

Actually, I don't think that is accurate. He just places full responsibility from any word/thought interaction on the listener and absolves the
speaker because the words can't accomplish anything by themselves but he acknowledges that the interaction takes place.

Every time you pretend a word flies through the air, affecting your feelings through cause and effect, you are engaging in magical thinking.

Also every time he says that the only effect words have is on paper and air. He doesn't acknowledge the interaction, simply because that's how words
accomplish things and he absolutely refuses to see that words do accomplish things

The cult of victimhood has made language a valuable commodity in it's negative form. Someone says something negative to you then you get victim
bragging rights. The sympathy will pour in from everywhere because you were the recipient of 'hurtful' language. When those words come from someone
the Left wants ruined then you can bet it become first-page news and plastered everywhere. Often resulting in said speaker of hurtful words losing
their job or social status at a minimum.

It's become a tool for the Left, nothing more. One more way to generate sympathy for their causes while shutting down our fundamental rights to free
speech and freedom of the press.

OP's point is that the words, without the interaction with thought are incapable of producing action. He's right.

The difference in opinions stems from the fact that everyday situations don't happen within that vacuum. The argument doesn't usually apply in real
life.

So lets say a group gets together to tear down a statue. OP's argument fails him. Anyone who "loves" the statue isn't going to be hurt by others
blowing it up. People who feel it is wrong to destroy history are going to feel no pain from a pile of burning books.

Are those things wrong? There is no physical suffering so, by the OP's logic, they can't be yet he used the Buddhas of Bamiyan as an example even
though that actually contradicts his point.

The argument does apply to real life. It is a point of fact that people get angry or sad when they hear words. It isn't a point of fact that words
make people angry and sad.

My point from the very beginning is that the words—or in this case statues—are the innocent victims of emotional prejudice, superstition, and
falsities. It's like destroying anything. It is gone for ever. No one can use it, learn from it, or be amazed by its beauty. People do suffer with the
destruction of their tools, art and history. It's robbing the human race.

It might apply sometimes but sometimes it doesn't, That is why I didn't speak in absolutes.

Statues can't be victims, innocent or otherwise.

People suffering the loss of their tools, art and history is the same as people suffering from words. They are not actually feeling physical pain. It
is only magical thinking, according to your logic.

I'm not saying anyone feels physical pain from statues. In fact I've been stating the exact opposite. What I am saying is that human beings are robbed
of the right of viewing them, using them, and learning from them. The same goes with banned words, burned books, and destroyed knowledge. They are
stealing from the human race just to satiate their feelings.

You basic premise that no real suffering means words can be shrugged off applies to statutes being taken down as well.

Your feelings about them being taken down is no different than the feelings of those who want them taken down.

You want to eat your cake and have it too. Of course this was already pointed out.

You're wrong again, either through ignorance or thick-headedness, one or the other. The basic premise is that words cause zero harm. The belief that
they do is superstitious. Yes it's the same with statues and other symbols. My feelings about statues being destroyed, and words being censored, is
completely valid and I can make that case.

It was pointed out countless times, but wrong every single time. It's a stupid illogical argument.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
They destroy it because of what it represents, not what it is. I seek to keep it because of what it is, not what it represents. There is a big
difference.

Not really. They represent something to you as well. In the end both sides are just thinking about what they have before them and want a certain
action, destruction or preservation, for whatever reason.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.